The faux-conservative sham about the impeachment inquiry

The Democrat’s willing scribes in the mainstream media have been struggling recently to find a way to talk about the announced impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s shady history, particularly when it comes to the cash cow known as Biden Inc. This morning, on CNN’s State of the Union, they found that they had been thrown a lifeline in the form of some Republicans who are willing to criticize the effort. They featured a “Republican strategist” I’d never heard of who was making the point (or so they thought) that Speaker McCarthy “shouldn’t impeach Biden as payback for Trump’s impeachments.” There’s so much wrong with that analysis that it’s hard to know where to begin, but the panel found more ammunition to use in their argument in the form of a recent op-ed written by Colorado Republican Congressman Ken Buck. In it, Buck claims that the GOP is relying on “an imagined history” and there is no “smoking gun evidence” tying Joe Biden to his son Hunter. Where are these people buying the Kool-Aid they’re clearly drinking? Taegan Goddard summarizes the piece at Political Wire.


Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) wrote a scathing op-ed slamming his Republican colleagues’ efforts to impeach President Biden, arguing their efforts are a baseless distraction based on a “narrative in right-wing media.”

Wrote Buck: “Republicans in the House who are itching for an impeachment are relying on an imagined history. What’s missing, despite years of investigation, is the smoking gun that connects Joe Biden to his ne’er-do-well son’s corruption.”

The first false flag in this circular firing squad is found in Buck’s characterization (repeated on CNN today) that the GOP leadership is “itching for an impeachment” and that they are “trying to impeach Joe Biden.” In reality, Kevin McCarthy and the chairs of multiple House committees have been explicit and clear about this in multiple interviews. There has been no impeachment of Joe Biden announced.

What has been announced and what should have been voted on (but wasn’t) is an impeachment inquiry. The difference may seem subtle to some, but it’s not. The inquiry is an important procedural tool at this point and nothing more. There is no rule saying an inquiry must be followed by an official floor vote to impeach. But under an impeachment inquiry, the House can call witnesses and demand testimony and evidence that have been refused to them thus far. The level of stonewalling that has gone on has been ridiculous, and this inquiry should hopefully allow some of those barriers blocking the discovery of the truth to be removed.

Personally, no matter how much is revealed over the course of the inquiry, I would still probably be opposed to an actual impeachment attempt. Biden is looking more and more guilty with every day of the unfolding investigation. But it would be pointless to pursue an impeachment that would have absolutely no chance of delivering a conviction in the Senate and might not even pass in the House, given that some of the RINOs (apparently including Ken Buck) may well line up and vote with the Democrats.


As to the lack of “smoking gun evidence” against Joe Biden, I would make two points. First of all, the people saying this have clearly either not been watching the results being delivered by the Oversight Committee and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government or they are deliberately ignoring them. The testimony of whistleblowers and people directly involved during Biden’s Vice Presidency has been damning. The stacks of suspicious banking transaction reports and records pried from the hands of the FBI itself have been making Biden’s corruption increasingly obvious. And there is still more to come.

Secondly, let’s accept that we do not yet have a “smoking gun” color photograph of Joe Biden being handed a cartoonishly large burlap bag full of hundred-dollar bills by Xi Jinping. (Though we are reportedly very close to having additional bank transaction records showing foreign cash flowing directly into at least one account with Joe Biden’s name on it.) Assuming such “smoking gun” evidence exists, how are we ever going to find it unless we let the House finish the inquiry? The only people – particularly Republicans – who are calling for an end to the inquiry certainly sound like the ones who want to keep the results from the public no matter what is discovered. And I question their motives.

What do you think?

%d bloggers like this: